BRADENTON BEACH – The city has prevailed in the appeal of a 2019 court ruling that six former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law.
On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel in the District Court of Appeal of Florida’s Second District (Second DCA) in Lakeland issued a written opinion that provided no details but affirmed 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that the six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that requires elected and appointed city officials to conduct their official business in a public setting.
Paralegal Michael Barfield and Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry assisted attorney Robert Watrous with the legal work associated with the civil lawsuit that resulted in Nicholas’ 2019 ruling, and the subsequent ruling Nicholas issued later that year regarding the city’s recovery of attorney fees.
Barfield and Perry remained involved in the now-completed appellate process that did not require an additional in-person hearing or the re-arguing of the facts presented during the July 2019 trial.
When contacted by The Sun, Barfield and Perry both confirmed that the per curiam opinion issued by the Second DCA means the city prevailed in the appeal.
“I am pleased that the Second DCA upheld Judge Nicholas’ thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” Perry said. “I’m glad this part of the case is behind us and that Judge Nicholas’ ruling was vindicated,” Barfield said.
Case history
At the conclusion of the multi-day trial in July 2019 at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton, Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Sunshine Law in 2017 when discussing city business that could have foreseeably come before them in their official capacities as Planning and Zoning Board members or Scenic WAVES Committee members.
The Sunshine Law violations occurred during the non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings that were recorded by CNOBB members. Those recordings were shared at the CNOBB website and later presented as evidence during the trial.
In August 2019, Mapes, Martin, Metz and the Vincents filed an appeal of Nicholas’ July ruling. Shay did not join the appeal filed with the Second DCA.
In October 2019, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498 as reimbursement for a significant portion of the attorney fees the city incurred during the multi-year legal battle that remained ongoing at the time.
In that written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed in principle to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements could not be reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.
In November 2020, as the appeal process dragged on, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city in which they agreed to collectively pay the city $350,000 and drop their appeals. Shay and the Vincents then reached settlement agreements in which they agreed to each pay the city $500, with Bill and Rose Vincent also dropping their appeals. The settlement agreements left Mapes as the only remaining appellant.
In May 2021, a final judgment was issued against Mapes in the amount of $19,760, to be paid to the city of Bradenton Beach.
At the time of his death earlier this year, Reed Mapes was the only remaining appellant in the city’s Sunshine Law case. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Mapes passed away on April 13 of this year. On April 28, Watrous sent a letter to Mapes’ attorney and designated trustee, Robert Hendrickson, noting the amount due at that time, including accrued interest, was $20,563.
To date, the judgment against Mapes remains unpaid, but the city still hopes to recover the money owed.
“The city and its taxpayers have been entitled to recover the costs caused by Mr. Mapes and payment is long overdue,” Perry said when contacted regarding the Second DCA opinion.
BRADENTON – County Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh has reached a settlement with paralegal Michael Barfield regarding the Public Records Act lawsuit Barfield filed in December.
On June 19, Baugh signed a settlement agreement that required her to pay Barfield $4,319. When contacted on Thursday, July 1, Barfield said he received a check from Baugh the previous day and the check was drawn on her personal bank account. Barfield said he now considers the lawsuit to be “a done deal.”
According to the executed settlement document, “Without admitting any liability, the parties recognize that it is in the parties’ best interest to settle the action and claims between them. The parties are entering into this agreement for the purpose of avoiding greater future costs.”
Barfield’s civil lawsuit originally named County Commissioner James Satcher as the lone defendant and Baugh and Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge were later named as co-defendants.
In April, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge agreed to similar settlement agreements that called for them to collectively pay Barfield $6,000. In May, the Manatee County Commission voted 7-0 in favor of county taxpayers reimbursing Satcher and Van Ostenbridge approximately $56,000 to cover their attorney fees and settlement costs. When the county commission reconvenes later this month, Baugh will have an opportunity to seek similar county reimbursement for her attorney fees and settlement costs.
Baugh deposition
The Sun obtained a transcript of the deposition Barfield conducted of Baugh under oath on May 14. During the deposition, Baugh admitted she did not write the county resolution pertaining to meeting procedures that she presented for county commission adoption on Nov. 19. She also admitted that she previously claimed to have written the resolution herself.
The resolution Baugh presented on Nov. 19 with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole pertained to meeting protocols and what types of commission actions could be taken during a particular type of meeting. The resolution was adopted that day by a 4-3 vote.
That commission action preceded Van Ostenbridge’s motion, which was not publicly noticed, to put then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed at a future meeting. Several weeks later, the county resolution adopted on Nov. 19 was rescinded by a unanimous commission vote.
Shown here at a county commission meeting, paralegal Michael Barfield deposed Vanessa Baugh under oath in May. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Tallahassee-based attorney George Levesque represented Baugh at the deposition and throughout the legal proceeding. The deposition transcript provides a verbatim record of the verbal exchanges that occurred regarding the county resolution.
“Let’s talk about the resolution that was introduced by you at the November 19 meeting. Do you recall that?”
“Yes,” Baugh responded.
When was the first time that you saw that resolution?” Barfield asked.
“Middle part of November. I don’t recall the exact date,” Baugh responded.
Did you draft that resolution?” Barfield asked.
“No,” Baugh responded.
“Have you previously made statements that you did?” Barfield asked
“Yes,” Baugh responded.
“And who drafted the resolution?” Barfield asked.
“Object to the form. I’m going to instruct her not to answer,” Levesque responded.
Barfield then paused the deposition and asked that Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen be contacted by telephone regarding Baugh’s refusal to answer his question.
When addressing the judge, Levesque said, “I’m not aware of any cases that would extend that type of public records obligation for disclosure where a private citizen hands a paper document to a government official that would then allow someone requesting the record to go back to that private citizen and say you have to give me the native file of the document that you provided in hard copy form to the government official. It would be a different story if it was drafted by Commissioner Baugh herself or one of the county staff created that document and then provided it (to) Commissioner Baugh.”
Barfield then said, “I think I am entitled to some leeway as to the circumstances of how this record came into existence and whether there are any other records that exist relating to the creation of this resolution. It was a critical document that started this entire case.”
When issuing his decision, Sniffen said, “I don’t believe the public records statute permits a wholesale investigation of the thought processes and motivations of the people who are the subject of the request. I think going into what the origin of documents was, who possessed them, when they were processed, things like that go beyond what is contemplated by the statute.”
When the deposition resumed, Baugh told Barfield she received the resolution in the lobby of the county administration building from an individual whom she did not name. Baugh told Barfield she didn’t have an appointment with that individual and that it was a random encounter.
Baugh told Barfield she then took a photo of the document and sent the photo to then-Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague.
“I wanted to make sure that it was appropriate to bring for our board. I wanted him to look at it and say it was proper,” Baugh told Barfield during the deposition.
Baugh said she does not know what became of the original document and she told Barfield she had no additional contact with the individual who provided her with the resolution.
BRADENTON BEACH – Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ordered Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $19,760.
According to the written ruling Nicholas issued on Friday, May 14, that amount represents $17,998 in attorney fees and $1,762 in interest fees. These are to be paid to the city as remaining reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred in its successful pursuit of a 2019 ruling from Nicholas that Mapes and five other city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
In July 2019, Nicolas ruled that Mapes and fellow planning and zoning board members John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent, and Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, violated the Sunshine Law when discussing matters related to their official public business at a series of non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said when issuing his 2019 ruling.
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
In 2019, Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes was one of six former advisory board members that violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, John Metz, and Tjet Martin to collectively pay the city $369,498. Because of an argument set forth by Shay, Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of that shared financial responsibility for the city’s legal fees. Nicholas reached that conclusion when he learned Shay and the Vincents reached settlement agreements with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those three settlement officers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not also agreed to similar settlement offers that would have alleviated the need for a trial had all six defendants agreed to settle.
Metz and Martin later paid the city $350,000 and agreed to drop their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. Shay and the Vincents then paid the city $500 each, and the Vincents agreed to drop their appeals. Shay was the only defendant who did not appeal the 2019 ruling
In his May 14 ruling regarding the remaining attorney fees sought by the city, Nicholas wrote, “Mapes was an especially active participant in the Sunshine Law violations committed by the members of Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach in the summer of 2017, appeared eager throughout the litigation to force the city to prove its claims despite multiple audio recordings which documented the violations, and appeared to be disinclined to settle on the plaintiff’s terms.”
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city in this legal matter, with significant assistance provided by paralegal Michael Barfield. City Attorney Ricinda Perry also assisted with this case.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioners James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge have reached a $6,000 settlement with paralegal Michael Barfield in the lawsuit he filed regarding Public Records Act compliance.
According to the settlement agreement, “Van Ostenbridge and Satcher shall pay Barfield the sum of $6,000 within 30 days of full execution of this agreement. Barfield agreed to file notice of voluntary dismissal.”
County Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh is now the lone remaining defendant in the civil lawsuit Barfield filed and then amended in December alleging the defendants’ failure to fully comply with the public records requests he submitted on Nov. 20.
Barfield sought from Baugh, Satcher, Van Ostenbridge and Commissioner George Kruse all emails, text messages, social media and other digital messages sent or received from Nov. 3 (election night) through Nov. 20. He also requested detailed phone logs of all calls made or received during that period. Because he promptly complied with Barfield’s requests, Kruse was not named in the lawsuit.
Barfield’s records requests were preceded by the Nov. 19 special county commission meeting requested by Van Ostenbridge during which he proposed putting County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a future meeting. Van Ostenbridge made that motion with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole.
When opposing the motion, Commissioner Reggie Bellamy said the efforts to oust Coryea appeared to be “premeditated.” Commissioner Carol Whitmore said they appeared to be “orchestrated.”
It was also learned that Van Ostenbridge requested and received a private meeting with Coryea earlier that morning, during which he asked Coryea to resign without first consulting with the commission as a whole. Coryea told Van Ostenbridge she would not resign.
District 3 Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has agreed to settle the lawsuit and now seeks reimbursement from the county. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
On Feb. 23, Coryea and the county commission mutually agreed to a separation agreement that ended her tenure as county administrator and called for her to receive approximately $204,000 in compensation from the county.
Settlement reached
When contacted May 4, Barfield said, “They are reimbursing not all, but a significant portion of my costs. There were no attorney fees because I didn’t hire an attorney. That probably saved them another $10,000 or $15,000 in legal fees. Vanessa Baugh hasn’t settled yet.”
On Tuesday, May 11, the county commission will discuss Satcher and Van Ostenbridge’s request to collectively be reimbursed $60,000 for the attorney fees and costs they incurred as defendants. Attorney Morgan Bentley represented Van Ostenbridge and attorney Robert Robinson represented Satcher.
As of Sunday, the meeting packet for Tuesday’s meeting did not include any documents that detail how the $60,000 reimbursement figure was determined. The reimbursement request requires the support of at least four commissioners.
The meeting packet includes a memo from County Attorney Bill Clague that states, “Florida law allows the county to pay the legal expenses incurred by commissioners in this case, subject to the board finding that the commissioners were performing their official duties for a public purpose in the matters covered by the litigation.”
On Thursday, May 6, The Sun requested from the Manatee County Records Division, acting County Administrator Scott Hopes and others any documents Satcher and Van Ostenbridge provided in support of their $60,000 request. The only response received was from Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Angelina Colonneso, who also requested those records.
“We are requesting the itemized receipts which would be needed prior to any reimbursement. The request will be made of the commissioners themselves, not via the county,” Colonneso stated in her response, adding that she will provide copies of those documents when received.
“We had one very brief hearing in this case and one all-day deposition (for Van Ostenbridge). I can’t figure out how they could cumulatively run up legal bills for $54,000. They’re only paying me $6,000,” Barfield said.
“We’re entitled to see the back-up material: the amount of fees, the billing hours incurred and the rates they’re paying their attorneys. It has to be a reasonable number. You can’t determine reasonable costs until you know what the $54,000 is based on. In my view, all of this should come out of their own pockets because they failed to comply with the law, and they didn’t turn over any records until after a judge issued an order for them to do so. They are now asking the county taxpayers to support their violations of the Public Records Act,” he added.
In response to a criminal complaint also filed by Barfield, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted a criminal investigation of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge.
On March 19, FDLE spokesperson Jeremy Burns provided a case summary that stated, “In December, the state attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit requested FDLE’s assistance with reviewing a citizen complaint concerning allegations of Sunshine Law violations and possibly other law violations by several Manatee County commissioners. FDLE Agents met with the complainant who alleged that James Satcher, George Kruse, Vanessa Baugh and Kevin Van Ostenbridge conspired to reverse a controversial land purchase (the Lena Road property) and to fire the Manatee County administrator. There was no information obtained to substantiate that a criminal violation occurred.”
By settling the lawsuit, the defendants are neither admitting or denying the allegations made by Barfield in his civil suit, but are, in part, “entering into this agreement for the purpose of avoiding greater future costs.”
Bower memo
In response to the reimbursement request, District 3 resident and former commission candidate Matt Bower submitted to the county a four-page memorandum in opposition to the award of attorney fees.
“At this time, no documentation has been presented to the board or to the public giving rise that these two commissioners actually paid for the legal services they are requesting reimbursement. Considering the asset and income disclosure by each of these two commissioners at the time of their filing for county commissioner, it is difficult to believe either commissioner personally paid for such legal services. To even consider whether such legal fees should be reimbursed, the burden of proof is upon these two commissioners to submit proof – copies of checks, wiring of funds or otherwise – that such fees were paid and incurred,” Bower’s memo states.
According to the disclosure form Satcher filed when seeking office, Satcher Ministries earned $28,932 and Satcher earned $16,714 as a business consultant per his 2019 federal tax returns. According to his disclosure form, Van Ostenbridge earned $20,000 from Boyd Realty and $58,791 as the owner-operator of Be Easy Tours. Manatee County Commissioners currently earn approximately $90,000 per year.
District 1 Commissioner James Satcher seeks county reimbursement after settling a Public Records Act-related lawsuit. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“If an award of attorney’s fees is granted, those fees must be considered reasonable. Thus, without a billing ledger from the commissioners’ attorney, no board member, nor the public, is in a position to grant this request. I find it disingenuous that a billing ledger has not been provided,” Bower’s memo stated.
Baugh deposition and hearing
“I’ve said I wouldn’t end the case until I have comfort that I received all the records I requested. I’m not there yet with Commissioner Baugh,” Barfield said.
Baugh
On May 5, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen approved Barfield’s request to depose Baugh under oath on Friday, May 14. A subsequent hearing before Sniffen has been scheduled on Friday, May 26 at 9 a.m.
On April 27, Tallahassee-based attorney George Levesque sent Sniffen a letter on behalf of his client, Baugh.
“In light of the allegations made in Mr. Barfield’s petition, the undisputed sworn evidence and the procedural history in this case, we believe there is just cause for this court to dismiss or deny the petition. Commissioner Baugh would like for this court to conduct a non-evidentiary hearing to afford her the opportunity to advance these arguments,” Levesque’s letter stated.
Barfield said he hopes the May 26 hearing produces a ruling as to whether Baugh has fully complied with the Public Records Act.
BRADENTON BEACH – The city is seeking $31,645 in attorney fees, paralegal fees and legal costs from lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes.
Mapes is the only defendant who has not settled with the city in the 2017 Sunshine Law-related civil lawsuit in which the city prevailed.
In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Mapes and five other former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law by discussing official city business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.
The Sunshine Law requires members of the same elected or appointed governmental commission, committee or board to conduct their official business in properly noticed public meetings. It prohibits members of the same elected or appointed body from communicating with each other privately about their official business.
In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to pay the city a total of $369,498 for the recovery of the city’s attorney and paralegal fees. When issuing that ruling, Nicholas relieved co-defendants Patricia Shay, Rose Vincent and Bill Vincent of those shared financial responsibilities after learning the three of them had agreed, before the trial began, to settle with the city for $500 each and an acknowledgement that Sunshine Law compliance errors were made.
The city commission then rejected those settlement offers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlements which would have brought the case to an end before it went to trial.
In November, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city that resulted in the pair paying the city $350,000 and dropping their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. In separate actions, Shay and the Vincents agreed to pay the city $500 each, with the Vincents also agreeing to drop their appeals. Shay did not appeal Nicholas’ ruling.
Final hearing
On Monday, March 29, a virtual hearing on fees and costs was held via Zoom, with Nicholas presiding. Assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield, Robert Watrous again represented the city. Mapes represented himself at the hearing, which lasted slightly more than 30 minutes.
Watrous noted the amount sought is in accordance with statewide uniform guidelines for the taxation of costs and civil actions. Watrous said he would provide the court and Mapes with a cost summary and detailed supporting documents that verify all legal fees and costs billed to the city of Bradenton Beach through the conclusion of the 2019 civil lawsuit trial.
“Mr. Mapes is the only remaining defendant. We have settled with Mr. Metz. We have settled with Ms. Martin. The other defendants we have settled with also,” Watrous told the judge.
Watrous said the $350,000 payment made by Metz and Martin and the $1,500 received from Shay and the Vincents total $351,500, leaving a remaining deficiency of $17,998 in unrecovered attorney and paralegal fees.
“It’s our position that those would be the responsibility of Mr. Mapes because he is the only remaining defendant,” Watrous said.
Watrous and the city seek an additional $13,647 in legal costs that include court reporter fees, court reporter transcription fees, photocopying and other non-attorney, non-paralegal costs.
“It’s our position that Mr. Mapes be responsible for the costs,” Watrous said.
Nicholas then provided Mapes a chance to respond.
“I find it interesting that Mr. Metz and Tjet Martin paid $350,000 to end their issues. Then, after all of this time, Patty Shay and the Vincents settled for $500. I can’t quite figure out why I wasn’t offered the same. It seems somewhat odd to me that they settle with these three people that we know have very little funds. I have no funds. I’m a little bit befuddled about that and can’t quite figure out how they got such a good deal at the last minute,” said Mapes, who was dealing with health issues before and during the 2019 trial.
Mapes owns a home in Parrish which, according to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, has an appraised value of $501,732. In 2018, Mapes and his wife sold their Bradenton Beach condominium for slightly more than $1 million.
Regarding the rejected settlement offers that Shay and the Vincents signed before the trial began, Mapes said, “I didn’t sign the document that came out in 2019 because I knew good and well John Metz was not going to agree to it. I saw no reason to sign something I knew was not going to go anywhere, but all of a sudden it went someplace at the very end with Patricia Shay and the Vincents.”
12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas intends to issue his next ruling without conducting another hearing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun file photo
Nicholas did not ask Watrous to do a line-by-line review of the costs and fees sought, but he did ask Watrous to swear that the information contained in the summary of costs was true.
Nicholas directed Watrous to provide Mapes with copies of the cost summary and the supporting documents. He also ordered Watrous to file a sworn affidavit regarding the remaining $17,998 in attorney and paralegal fees sought.
“I’m not going to rule today with regard to this issue. I have to review the summary of costs in more detail now that it’s sworn to,” Nicholas said.
Nicholas gave Mapes until Friday, April 16 to file any objections he has regarding the fees and costs sought.
In closing, Nicholas said, “This case is almost at the finish line and I’m not inclined to have any more hearings. I don’t think that it’s necessary. I’m not likely to make any decisions prior to April 16.”
As of Sunday, April 11, Mapes had not yet filed any formal objections to the fees and costs sought.
Updated March 22, 2021 at 5:22 p.m. – MANATEE COUNTY – A Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation found no evidence that four Manatee County commissioners committed crimes or violated the Sunshine Law.
“In December, the state attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit requested FDLE’s assistance with reviewing a citizen complaint concerning allegations of Sunshine Law violations and possibly other law violations by several Manatee County commissioners. FDLE agents met with the complainant who alleged that Manatee County Commissioners James Satcher, George Kruse, Vanessa Baugh and Kevin Van Ostenbridge conspired to reverse a controversial land purchase and to fire the Manatee County administrator,” according to the case summary that FDLE spokesperson Jeremy Burns provided on Friday, March 19.
“FDLE initiated a preliminary inquiry to determine if any criminal violations occurred. After the review of records provided by the complainant and conducting several interviews, there was no information obtained to substantiate that a criminal violation occurred,” according to the FDLE case summary.
According to Burns, FDLE considers the investigation closed.
The investigation was conducted in response to a complaint filed by paralegal Michael Barfield.
“Obviously, I’m disappointed. It seems the standard in this jurisdiction requires a confession before a Sunshine Law violation is charged,” Barfield said when contacted Friday afternoon. “We will look at the preliminary investigation FDLE conducted. I don’t believe they conducted a full investigation. My understanding is they didn’t even interview Mr. Van Ostenbridge.”
Van Ostenbridge, Satcher and Baugh are still named as defendants in a related civil lawsuit that Barfield filed in early December regarding the commissioners’ compliance with the Public Records Act and the public records he requested of them and Kruse in late November.
Barfield said the FDLE findings have no impact on the civil case.
“In a criminal investigation, you have to prove that there was a criminal intent to violate the law and the burden of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Fortunately, a civil process does not require any intent. The standard of proof is much lower, and the judge makes that determination,” Barfield said.
Van Ostenbridge deposed
As part of the ongoing civil proceedings, Barfield deposed Van Ostenbridge under oath on March 12. Barfield said Van Ostenbridge did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights or refuse to answer the questions posed to him – as was previously suggested in a motion that attorney Morgan Bentley filed on Van Ostenbridge’s behalf.
County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has been deposed under oath regarding the still pending civil case. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“We took Commissioner Van Ostenbridge’s deposition, and I am still waiting for additional records to be produced that I’ve been promised. There wasn’t anything terribly new in the deposition in terms of what we didn’t already know, but Mr. Van Ostenbridge did say he made the decision to terminate Cheri Coryea before he was sworn in on Nov. 17. He said he made that decision sometime between the 11th and the 13th of November,” Barfield said.
At the request of Bentley, the media was excluded from attending Van Ostenbridge’s deposition. Barfield said he will order and later place in the court records a copy of the verbatim transcript being prepared by the court reporter tasked with producing the official record of the deposition.
Barfield said he previously obtained email records that show Baugh, on Oct. 28, sent Van Ostenbridge, Kruse and Satcher a copy of then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea’s employment contract. Barfield said the emails containing Coryea’s contract included no additional comments from Baugh. The commissioners were subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law after being elected Nov. 3.
Barfield said he’s also still waiting on additional records to be produced by Baugh and Satcher.
“After I reach the point in time when I feel confident there’s no other records to recover, we’ll have time to review everything,” he said.
Additional investigations
The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office has not yet released any findings in a separate criminal investigation conducted in response to a criminal complaint Barfield filed regarding Baugh’s involvement in the pop-up vaccine distribution site she helped establish in her Lakewood Ranch district in February.
Baugh is also the subject of an unresolved ethics complaint that attorney Jennifer Hamey filed regarding the Lakewood Ranch vaccination site.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights when deposed under oath by Michael Barfield on Friday, March 12, according to court filings.
Barfield, a paralegal, is representing himself in a civil case he filed in 12th Judicial Circuit Court on Dec. 7, 2020, against Van Ostenbridge and commissioners Vanessa Baugh and James Satcher, claiming they violated Florida’s public records law.
During a hearing Friday afternoon conducted via Zoom, Judge Charles Sniffen denied Van Ostenbridge’s March 1 motion for an order protecting him from being deposed.
During the deposition, Van Ostenbridge will invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him, according to Van Ostenbridge’s attorney, Morgan Bentley.
Attorney Morgan Bentley is representing Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Bentley Law Firm | Submitted
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is conducting an independent criminal investigation of the case. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Barfield began making public records requests of Van Ostenbridge and fellow commissioners Baugh, Satcher and George Kruse on Nov. 20. That was one day after Van Ostenbridge made a motion at a county commission meeting to put then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her proposed termination would be discussed and decided in early December.
Van Ostenbridge made that motion two days after he, Satcher and Kruse took office, and with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole. Baugh, Satcher and Kruse supported the motion, which was later rescinded at the request of Kruse, who is not named as a co-defendant in the case.
Coryea and the county commission agreed to a $204,000 separation settlement on Feb. 23, which ended by mutual agreement her tenure as county administrator.
Motion for protective order argued
In the motion denied by the court, Bentley wrote, “Van Ostenbridge has produced all items requested by plaintiff. Nonetheless, on Feb. 19, plaintiff filed his notice of taking deposition. Such deposition is improper in the context of the current litigation, the purpose of which was to obtain documents. As such documents have been produced, there is no ongoing purpose and no need to take the deposition of Van Ostenbridge other than to annoy and harass.
“Moreover, there exists a pending Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation. The FDLE investigation centers on the same issues as those involved in this case. As such, during the pendency of that investigation, Van Ostenbridge will necessarily invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to questions related to any matters subject to the investigation,” Bentley stated in his written motion.
In his response to Bentley’s motion, Barfield wrote: “Van Ostenbridge claims he has produced all records responsive to the records request but wants to avoid questions about his production by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights due to a pending criminal investigation. As set forth below, there is a factual dispute about whether Van Ostenbridge has produced all records. Moreover, a blanket assertion of Fifth Amendment rights is not permitted under Florida law.
“The contention that Van Ostenbridge produced all records responsive to the records request prior to the amended complaint is disputed by the parties. As one example, Van Ostenbridge’s response to the amended order to show cause, filed on Dec. 23 claimed ‘all items’ sought in the records request had been produced. However, as recently as Jan. 26, Van Ostenbridge produced records responsive to the request that had not previously been produced.
“Two days later, Van Ostenbridge produced another version of the same record but with a different filename. An evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the dispute about whether all records have been produced. It is inconsistent for Van Ostenbridge to claim he has produced everything while seeking shelter under the Fifth Amendment to prevent any adversarial inquiry to test his claim of full compliance,” Barfield stated in his response.
Paralegal Michael Barfield wants to question Kevin Van Ostenbridge under oath. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The litigation is related to the commissioners’ compliance with Florida’s open-government laws, which includes the Public Records Act and the Government in the Sunshine law. The purpose of the pending litigation is to ensure that all records responsive to the initial request have been produced. I have many questions about the production of records and whether it was a full and complete production. That is why I scheduled Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s deposition,” Barfield stated after the motion was denied.
When being deposed, the subject is questioned under oath, usually in a non-courtroom setting, with a court reporter present. The court reporter then produces a verbatim transcript that serves as sworn preliminary testimony to be provided to the judge and others before a case goes to trial.
As the county’s District 3 commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach, Cortez, the northern portion of Longboat Key and portions of Bradenton.
MANATEE COUNTY – Manatee County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh’s role in the controversial Lakewood Ranch pop-up vaccination distribution site has prompted a sworn criminal complaint filed by Sarasota-based paralegal Michael Barfield.
Barfield filed his complaint Monday evening with 12th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Ed Brodsky’s office and also with the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). The complaint alleges Baugh’s vaccination-related efforts may have violated Florida law.
The sheriff’s office is now investigating Barfield’s complaint. When contacted by email on Tuesday, MCSO Public Information Officer Randy Warren said, “It’s an active investigation. Michael Barfield filed a complaint yesterday and our detectives are looking into it now.”
“Sometime near Tuesday, Feb. 9, Manatee County resident Rex Jensen received a telephone call from Pat Neal. Governor Ron DeSantis was already on the line when the call was made.” – Michael Barfield
In contrast to the randomized, lottery-style vaccine registration and standby pool protocols previously established by the Manatee County Commission, Baugh helped organize a pop-up vaccine distribution site for 3,000 recipients in the 34202 and 34211 zip codes only. In doing so, Baugh did not consult her fellow commissioners. The vaccinations occurred the week of Feb. 16.
On Feb. 16, Manatee County issued a press release regarding the pop-up clinic. In the press release, Baugh was quoted as saying, “This unique opportunity was made possible by Governor DeSantis calling Rex Jensen wanting to do a vaccination site near Lakewood Ranch. The governor has been trying to find large areas of neighborhoods to target.”
Jensen is the president of Schroeder-Manatee Ranch Inc. Schroeder-Manatee Ranch is the parent company of Lakewood Ranch.
In addition to restricting vaccine access to zip codes only, Baugh produced a list of five specific vaccine recipients who did not have to rely on their names being randomly pulled from the county’s standby registration pool. That list included Baugh herself, even though she decided later not to receive the vaccine.
“Vaccine distribution must not be based on politics. Manatee County unanimously adopted the Vaccine Standby Pool and residents have been patiently waiting for their number to be called. It’s offensive and criminal when one commissioner diverts 3,000 vaccine doses to an affluent area and then adds names, including her own, to a VIP list.” – Michael Barfield
On Monday, Feb. 15, Baugh emailed her list of specific recipients to Manatee County Public Safety Director Jake Saur. Baugh’s list included Jensen, whom she listed as living in the 34212 zip code, and his father, Lawrence Jensen, whom she listed as living in the 34208 zip code. Baugh’s list also included Lakewood Ranch residents Robert and Marie Keehn, whom she listed as living in the 34202 zip code, and herself, whom she listed as living in the 34202 zip code. Baugh also owns the Vanessa Fine Jewelry store in Lakewood Ranch.
Complaint allegations
“Based on the following information, I have a reasonable belief that violations of Florida Statutes occurred by Vanessa Baugh beginning on or about Feb. 9,” Barfield stated in his complaint.
The complaint references the following Florida Statutes:
“When Baugh inserted individuals and herself on a COVID-19 vaccine distribution list, she acted contrary to the adopted Vaccine Standby Pool and used her official position to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for herself and others, which may be in violation of section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, Misuse of Public Position.
“By including herself and individuals on a COVID-19 vaccine distribution list, Baugh acted contrary to the adopted Vaccine Standby Pool and altered or caused the alteration of an official record or official document, except as authorized by law or contract, or caused another person to perform such an act, which may be in violation of Section 838.022, Florida Statutes, Official Misconduct.
“By including herself and individuals on a COVID-19 vaccine distribution list, Baugh acted contrary to the adopted Vaccine Standby Pool and used her official position to take action in reliance on information to which she had access in her official capacity and which had not been made public, to acquire a pecuniary interest or gain a benefit by such information, which may be in violation of section 839.26, Florida Statutes, Misuse of Confidential Information,” Barfield stated in his complaint.
Supporting statements
Barfield’s complaint includes several additional supporting statements.
“On Jan. 6, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Manatee County held a special meeting regarding COVID-19 and vaccinations. At the conclusion of that special meeting, the Manatee BCC adopted a motion authorizing the county administrator to implement the ‘Vaccine Standby Pool,’ effective Jan. 7, until further notice. The motion was adopted unanimously. As explained in the public presentation during the special meeting, the effect of the Vaccine Standby Pool was to randomize distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine through a lottery system,” the complaint states.
“On or about Feb. 8, constituents of Baugh were actively soliciting her about their eligibility and inability to get appointments for vaccine distribution in Manatee County. Sometime near Tuesday, Feb. 9, Manatee County resident Rex Jensen received a telephone call from Pat Neal. Governor Ron DeSantis was already on the line when the call was made. The reported purpose of the call was to facilitate a location for a pop-up vaccine distribution site at Premier Sports Campus for additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine,” the complaint states.
“On Feb. 9, Baugh sent an email to Jacob (Jake) Saur, Director of Public Safety of Manatee County stating, ‘Jake, the state wants Rex to keep a list. Can we do that.’ That same afternoon, Jensen sent an email to Courtney Coppola, a Florida Department of Health employee, stating Baugh helped reserve the pop-up site and outlining the tentative plan: ‘I have no infrastructure or staff to field all the calls necessary to assemble and maintain a list of candidates for the vaccine. I am copying Commissioner Baugh in the hope that she might be able to think creatively to find a solution,’” the complaint states.
“Baugh ignored the Vaccine Standby Pool process and selected two zip codes within her own district, including friends and herself, that would receive the additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine at the pop-up site. On Feb. 12, Alicia Niki Boyette, a contractor on behalf of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, sent an email to Baugh regarding the registration process for the ‘upcoming vaccination event.’ Boyette indicated that the information the department required for the event was a list with names, date of birth and phone numbers. Baur forwarded the email from Boyette to Saur, who replied that he was working on it. The next day, Baugh replied to Saur ‘Pls send to me when you have info as I am working on a list.’ On Monday, Feb. 15, Baugh sent an email to Saur with the subject matter ‘Names for list’ in which she added a number of individuals to the list of those who would receive the extra doses of vaccine at the pop-up site,” Barfield’s complaint states.
“A notice was sent out to Manatee County residents on Feb. 17 advising that the vaccinations scheduled for Bennett Park under the adopted process would be rescheduled due to inclement weather. Meanwhile, the plan to distribute the additional doses at the pop-up site went forward,” the complaint states.
Barfield comments
When contacted Tuesday, Barfield said, “Vaccine distribution must not be based on politics. Manatee County unanimously adopted the Vaccine Standby Pool and residents have been patiently waiting for their number to be called. It’s offensive and criminal when one commissioner diverts 3,000 vaccine doses to an affluent area and then adds names, including her own, to a VIP list.”
Paralegal Michael Barfield alleges the recent vaccination selection process may have violated state law.- Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Worse, the regular vaccine distribution that was planned for the same weekend was canceled on the grounds of inclement weather. Yet the vaccine distribution at the pop-up site for the VIP list went forward without a hitch. If those optics aren’t bad enough, the VIP list and two zip codes selected by Baugh for vaccine distribution at the pop-up site happen to be the most affluent and white in Manatee County. I might add that these two zip codes have the lowest rate of COVID-19 infection within Manatee County,” Barfield said.
“This conduct is the classic example of corruption and using official power to gain a benefit for friends and the well-connected. It’s time for our system of justice to hold her accountable,” Barfield said.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a call log that details calls made and received on his personal phone.
As the District 3 county commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria Island, Cortez, the Manatee County portion of Longboat Key and west Bradenton.
Van Ostenbridge provided Barfield his phone records last week in response to the public records request Barfield made on Nov. 20.
As of Monday afternoon, Barfield said he had identified most of the calls listed in Van Ostenbridge’s call log, but he was still reviewing those records.
Van Ostenbridge’s phone log reveals who he talked to, when he talked to them and for how long, but it does not provide any details on the content of those phone conversations.
The Florida Sunshine Law prohibits members of the same county or city commission from discussing official or foreseeably official county business in any setting other than a properly noticed public meeting. The Sunshine Law does not prohibit members of the same elected body from discussing matters unrelated to their official government business.
Van Ostenbridge and Baugh calls
Van Ostenbridge was elected on Nov 3.
According to the call log he provided to Barfield, Van Ostenbridge and Baugh communicated by phone 15 times between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1. Their calls totaled 129 minutes and ranged in length from one minute to 23 minutes.
Van Ostenbridge and Baugh spoke for 17 minutes on Nov. 5, 23 minutes on Nov. 12, 14 minutes on Nov. 13, 10 minutes on Nov. 16 and for six minutes and 11 minutes on Nov. 18.
One day later, during the special county commission meeting Van Ostenbridge requested, Van Ostenbridge made a motion to put County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed on Jan. 6.
Baugh, Satcher and Commissioner George Kruse supported the motion made by Van Ostenbridge with no advance notice given to the public. But on Dec. 10, Kruse withdrew his support for further discussion on Coryea’s termination and those efforts have now ceased.
During the Nov. 19 meeting, Baugh also introduced a county resolution pertaining to commission meeting procedures, which was adopted by the same 4-3 vote with no advance notice given to the public.
When contacted Monday, Van Ostenbridge provided the following response via text message: “Vanessa Baugh is a very good friend and we speak regularly. I turned over all my calls with the other commissioners in the spirit of transparency. I did not discuss county business on any of those calls.”
County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a copy of her personal call log. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
When contacted Monday, Baugh provided a similar response: “Just personal conversations between two people who became friends on the campaign trail. We campaigned very closely together and forged a friendship.”
Calls with other commissioners
According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he engaged in five phone conversations with Satcher between Nov. 7 and Nov. Nov. 24. Those calls totaled 39 minutes and included a 21-minute call on Nov. 7 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 24.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated two phone conversations with Commissioner Misty Servia: a nine-minute call on Nov. 8 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 17 – the same day Van Ostenbridge, Satcher and Kruse were sworn in as commissioners.
Regarding her phone conversations with Van Ostenbridge, Servia said, “I endorsed Kevin and we had a friendly relationship, with messages of ‘Congratulations on being sworn in,’ and, ‘Are you getting settled into your new office?’ I wanted to see him grow and succeed. It goes without saying that I was extremely disappointed when he suggested firing our county administrator, and I had no idea that he planned to do that just hours after being sworn in.”
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge engaged in three phone conversations with Kruse between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1, for a total of 15 minutes.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated a one-minute call to Commissioner Carol Whitmore on Nov. 16 and Whitmore initiated consecutive one-minute and five-minute calls to Van Ostenbridge on Nov. 18.
Additional calls
Private citizens who do not hold public office or work for a local governmental agency are not subject to the Sunshine Law, but Van Ostenbridge’s call log provides additional insight into those he’s in frequent contact with.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and developer Carlos Beruff had nine phone communications for a total of 67 minutes between Nov. 11 and Nov. 21.
The pair spoke for 15 minutes on Nov. 11, for 17 minutes at 7:25 p.m. on Nov. 17, for seven minutes at 1:24 p.m. on Nov. 19 and for a total of 14 minutes on Nov. 20 during three consecutive calls that occurred between 6:39 a.m. and 7:17 a.m.
According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he spoke to developer Michael Neal six times for a total of 91 minutes between Nov. 12 and Nov. 20; and to developer Pat Neal three times for a total of 21 minutes.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown engaged in 10 phone conversations for a total of 80 minutes between Nov. 16 and Nov. 20.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and campaign supporter Bob Spencer, from West Coast Tomato, spoke nine times for a total of 55 minutes.
Barfield comments
When contacted Monday, Barfield commented on the calls made between commissioners.
“They would have you believe that all these calls were completely about friendship, but it appears they were taking steps behind the scenes to terminate Cheri Coryea, and to bring forth Commissioner Baugh’s resolution,” Barfield said.
“There’s still pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that are missing. Unfortunately, the picture coming into focus raises very troubling concerns about commissioners routinely chatting with each other on key dates surrounding the efforts to terminate the county administrator,” Barfield said.
Paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield continues to investigate the private communications of four Manatee County commissioners. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Barfield also commented on some of the other phone calls that took place.
“When you start piecing everything together, it tells me there are some key people acting as conduits between the commission, as well as the commissioners talking among themselves,” Barfield said.
Barfield said he was still reviewing the call log he received from Baugh on Christmas Eve. His partial review of Baugh’s calls between Nov. 3 and Nov. 11 indicate Baugh engaged in four calls with Van Ostenbridge and 12 calls with Kruse during that period.
According to Barfield, attorney George Levesque, from the GrayRobinson law firm in Tallahassee, is representing Baugh, and attorney Morgan Bentley is representing Van Ostenbridge.
MANATEE COUNTY – Private meeting notes and text messages disclosed in a public records request reveal more about County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s failed efforts to terminate County Administrator Cheri Coryea.
As the newly-elected District 3 commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria Island, Cortez, west Bradenton and Longboat Key.
During the Manatee County Commission’s Tuesday, Nov. 17 work session, Van Ostenbridge requested a special commission meeting on Thursday, Nov. 19. He said the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the county’s response to a potential COVID-related federal shutdown. When requesting the special meeting, Van Ostenbridge gave no indication that he also intended to propose Coryea’s termination.
With no advance notice given to the public, Van Ostenbridge then made a motion during the Nov. 19 meeting to put Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed and voted upon on Jan. 6. Commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and James Satcher supported the motion.
Text message records obtained as part of a public records request made by paralegal Michael Barfield reveal that Van Ostenbridge discussed the Coryea termination efforts with developer Carlos Beruff and others in advance of the special meeting at which he intended to call for Coryea’s termination.
Van Ostenbridge’s efforts to terminate Coryea came to an unexpected end on Thursday, Dec. 10, when Kruse made a motion to reconsider the Nov. 19 motion and end the Coryea termination efforts. The commission supported Kruse’s motion with a 7-0 vote.
Private meeting notes
Before the Nov. 19 special meeting took place, Van Ostenbridge requested and received a private meeting with Coryea at 7:30 a.m. that morning in Coryea’s office.
Coryea’s notes include a transcript of a voicemail message Van Ostenbridge left her and a printout of the text message exchange they had regarding the requested private meeting.
“I just wanna talk about how things are going so far and a little bit about the (special) meeting before we get there,” Van Ostenbridge said when requesting the private meeting.
According to Coryea’s handwritten notes, Van Ostenbridge began their meeting by saying, “I liked you before, when I met with you during the campaign, but when you closed on that property (Lena Road) I changed my mind. You should have waited for this new board because I had already spoke out against it and you should have stopped it.”
On Oct. 13, the previous county commission approved the $32.5 million purchase of a 161-acre property in east Manatee County at S.R. 64 and Lena Road. The closing for that sale took place on Friday, Nov. 13, four days before Van Ostenbridge, Kruse and Satcher took office.
The Lena Road property was purchased with the intent of creating a Central County Complex that provides a district office for the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and additional facilities for the county’s Public Works Department and Utilities Department.
According to her notes, Coryea responded to Van Ostenbridge’s comment by saying, “The board (of county commissioners) took two votes on this property, both passing. I’m responsible for carrying out the directives of the board.”
Van Ostenbridge then asked about the closing date.
“Based on the decision of the board, the closing was to occur anytime between 10/4/20 and 12/16/20 – when the due diligence had been successfully completed. It was completed around Nov. 2 or 3. Property Management Department proceeded with scheduling closing,” Coryea said, according to her notes.
Van Ostenbridge asked who approved the Nov. 13 closing date.
“I did. The previous board approved this action two times and the closing occurred during their terms,” Coryea said, according to her notes.
According to Coryea’s notes, Van Ostenbridge then said, “I am here to ask you for your resignation.”
County Administrator Cheri Coryea took this note during her private meeting with Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Manatee County | Submitted
In response, Coryea said, “You will be disappointed to hear I will not be submitting my resignation. I won’t be resigning.”
According to Coryea’s notes, Van Ostenbridge then shared his intentions for the Lena Road property.
“I intend to parcel out the property into small parcels and will sell them off at a loss and that will embarrass the previous board and you. I might keep a sliver for something. I have the votes,” he said, according to Coryea’s notes.
County Administrator Cheri Coryea took this note during her Nov. 19 meeting with Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Manatee County | Submitted
The Florida Sunshine Law prevents city and county commissioners from privately discussing any matter that could foreseeably come before them for official action or vote.
At that time of his meeting with Coryea, Van Ostenbridge, a Realtor with Boyd Realty, had been in office for less than 48 hours and had participated in one county meeting.
According to her notes, Coryea responded to Van Ostenbridge’s Lena Road comments by saying, “I had offered to provide a full briefing to the new commission on this project and many others that the board wanted. We were instructed in Jan. 2018 by the previous board to begin looking for a large parcel to co-locate needed services closer to population growth. We briefed each board member five times since then.”
In June, the commission received a third-party appraisal that valued the Lena Road property at $18.4 million.
“The board was aware of the appraisal price that was a market appraisal targeted at housing, not public use, ” Coryea wrote in her notes.
After further discussion about the Lena Road purchase, Van Ostenbridge said, “I intend to make a motion at the meeting today to ask for you to be terminated,” according to Coryea’s notes.
County Administrator Cheri Coryea rejected Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s request for her resignation. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to her notes, Coryea then questioned the true intent of the private meeting.
“When you asked me for this meeting this morning you said it was about the special meeting agenda item (a federal shutdown). I prepared a motion for it. Did you need it?” Coryea said, according to her notes.
“No, I don’t believe I need anything,” Van Ostenbridge said, according to Coryea’s notes.
“So, this meeting this morning was not to talk about that?” Coryea said, according to her notes.
“I’m all set for the meeting,” Van Ostenbridge said, according to Coryea’s notes, which indicate the meeting ended at 7:48 a.m.
Van Ostenbridge responds
When contacted Friday afternoon, Van Ostenbridge was asked about his meeting with Coryea.
Regarding Coryea’s notes that state he asked her to resign, Van Ostenbridge said, “That captures the spirit of what I was saying. I told her that she knew the incoming board was adamantly against the purchase. We felt that it was a drastic waste of taxpayer money and each of us made that clear during the campaign, including in public comments during meetings.
“I told her I had lost trust and confidence in her and I asked her for her resignation. I then said I scheduled the meeting with her as a courtesy, to alert her of my intention to make the motion to terminate. I was attempting to give her an opportunity to resign and spare her and the county the indignity of the debate which was sure to follow my motion,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge was asked if he felt a new commissioner, who had been in office less than 48 hours, had the authority to ask the county administrator to resign without first discussing it with the commission as a whole during a public meeting.
“When I put my hand on the Bible, I became a full commissioner. There’s no orientation period. I was doing it as a courtesy because I had made up my mind I was going to make the motion to terminate. I officially made up my mind on Friday (Nov. 13), when the deal was closed. I had sought the counsel of many business leaders in town, as well as friends of mine, even my parents, leading up to that time. When she closed the deal on Friday, I started letting some people know that I had made up my mind,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge was asked if any of those he sought counsel from were sitting county commissioners or future county commissioners who had not yet been sworn in.
“Absolutely not. I have not committed a Sunshine violation,” he said.
When asked about his alleged intentions to sell the Lena Road property at a loss, Van Ostenbridge said, “I said that I felt there was value in the property that abutted the landfill. I told her that was the most valuable to the county and the least valuable to the open market. I wanted to keep that, but I wanted to sell off the rest because I didn’t want to be saddled with the unnecessary improvements that would be needed on the rest of the property. The county overpaid for the property, so obviously when I go to sell it I’m not going to get market value. I told her that if we sold that off it would be at a loss, and the responsibility of that loss would fall on the previous board,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge denied telling Coryea he had the votes to sell the Lena Road property, which Coryea wrote in her notes.
“I never said that. At the end of the conversation, I said maybe you have the votes, maybe I have the votes and we’ll see in a couple hours,” Van Ostenbridge said, referring to his intent to pursue Coryea’s termination.
Van Ostenbridge’s statement contrasts with Coryea’s notes, in which the alleged comment about having the votes appears in conjunction with the discussion about selling the Lena Road property.
Van Ostenbridge confirmed that he told Coryea he would seek her termination.
“I said I’d be giving her notice of a hearing for termination at the special meeting,” he said.
Van Ostenbridge texts
Late Friday afternoon, in response to his public records request, Barfield received copies of Van Ostenbridge’s text message exchanges from Nov. 3 to Nov. 20.
Barfield confirmed that developer Carlos Beruff is the “Carlos” and “CB” that appears in some of the text message exchanges Van Ostenbridge produced.
Paralegal Michael Barfield, who serves as the president of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, is independently investigating the actions of county commissioners Kevin Van Ostenbridge, Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and James Satcher. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to those records, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a text message at 6:51 a.m., less than an hour before his Nov. 19 private meeting with Coryea.
“Good morning you all set,” Beruff wrote.
“All set. Meeting with Cheri at 7:30,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
This is one of several text message exchanges Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge had with developer Carlos Beruff. – Michael Barfield | Submitted
On Sunday, Nov. 15, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a link to a Bradenton Times story that included the headline: “Are special interests gunning for County Administrator?”
That story notes Beruff and other members of the development community pushed for Lakewood Ranch Business Alliance President Dom Dimaio to succeed retiring County Administrator Ed Hunzeker in 2019, rather than Coryea.
“We have a leaker,” Van Ostenbridge wrote in response to Beruff’s text about that story.
On Tuesday, Nov. 17, as part of the same text message exchange with Beruff, Van Ostenbridge wrote, “We have a special meeting on Thursday, after the port meeting. Carol took the bait.”
That message appears to refer to acting Commission Chair Carol Whitmore supporting Van Ostenbridge’s request for a special meeting discussion about a potential federal shutdown.
On Saturday, Nov. 14, Beruff initiated a text message exchange with Van Ostenbridge that began with a link to an East County Observer story about the county’s plans to build a solid waste transfer station on the Lena Road property.
“You may have missed this last week, but it basically says that they bought something they don’t need for 17-20 years,” Beruff wrote.
“They did all they could to saddle us with this (expletive) we don’t want. At least they’re done. Nothing left for them to do,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
On Thursday, Nov. 5, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a text message that said, “Good morning, take a look at this and see what you think. Call me when you get a chance.”
Attached to Beruff’s message was a Microsoft Word document titled “ManCo BOCC (Board of County Commissioners).docx.” The contents of that document are not known and Barfield said he has not received it.
“That looks good. I only want to drop the mention of masks. That is too much of a 50/50 issue. Call you in a few,” Van Ostenbridge wrote in his response to Beruff.
Van Ostenbridge’s text records also include an exchange he had with someone named Bob, whose initials are BS.
“We have a special meeting on Thursday after the port meeting. Carol took the bait,” Van Ostenbridge wrote.
“I watched you. Smooth baby,” Bob replied.
“Acted like I was stumbling through it, ha-ha,” Van Ostenbridge wrote.
Barfield said he did not yet know Bob’s identity.
On the evening of Nov. 19, Van Ostenbridge received a group text message from Chad Choate, a financial advisor at the Edward Jones office in Bradenton. Choate is Facebook friends with Van Ostenbridge and has posted county commission-related comments at Van Ostenbridge’s Facebook page.
“How long has she been county admin,” Choate wrote in his text message to Van Ostenbridge.
“2 years. She’s been a county employee for over 30 years. A 30-year bureaucrat. It’s time to put a private sector person in charge,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
“Yeah, who replaces her,” Choate wrote.
“Put your name in when the spot opens up,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner James Satcher is named as the sole defendant in a public records complaint filed today by paralegal Michael Barfield.
Barfield, a Sunshine Law expert, filed the complaint and an accompanying amended emergency motion this morning in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Bradenton seeking “judicial relief to protect the public’s right to transparency and enforcement of Florida’s vaunted Public Records Act.”
The filings pertain to a public records request Barfield submitted to Satcher on Friday, Nov. 20. That day, Barfield also submitted similar records requests to county commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. He later submitted a similar records request to former County Commissioner Steve Jonsson.
Barfield submitted his initial records requests one day after a Thursday, Nov. 19 county commission discussion that occurred with no advance public notice regarding the potential termination of County Administrator Cheri Coryea.
According to the complaint, “Plaintiff (Barfield) contends the defendant (Satcher) has public records in his individual possession but has failed to perform his statutory duty to make public records in his possession available for inspection and copying upon request. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus and an accelerated hearing for ongoing violations of the Act relating to the production of public records.”
Today, Barfield emailed a complaint-related letter to Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen.
“Earlier today, a complaint seeking emergency relief under the Public Records Act was filed with the clerk along with an amended emergency motion for issuance of a show cause order and for an immediate hearing as required by Florida Statute. This action was filed by me pro se,” the letter says.
“As set forth in the motion, I have had communications with attorney Peter Lombardo regarding this matter. Last Thursday, attorney Lombardo indicated that he has not been retained on this matter, but he was acting as a conduit for the defendant, Mr. Satcher. Accordingly, I have copied Mr. Lombardo here and have provided him with courtesy copies of the complaint and amended emergency motion,” Barfield’s letter said.
Monday afternoon, Judge Sniffen responded with an “order directing defendant to show cause why plaintiff’s complaint for writ of mandamus should not be granted.”
Sniffen’s order gives Satcher five days to respond.
“Defendant shall comply with Florida Statutes and preserve all records in his possession, custody and control and shall not dispose of any records maintained on any electronic devices or accounts until further order of the court,” Sniffen’s order states.
“The important thing in the judge’s order is that records have been ordered to be preserved on all electronic devices and accounts,” Barfield said when contacted late Monday afternoon.
Termination efforts
During the Nov. 19 discussion, county commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore described the unadvertised termination efforts initiated by Van Ostenbridge as “premeditated,” “orchestrated,” “reckless” and “dangerous.”
During that meeting, the commission voted 4-3 to put Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a public meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Bellamy, Servia and Whitmore opposed that action.
During that same meeting, the commission majority of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge adopted a county resolution presented by Baugh with no advance notice to the commission or the public. The adopted resolution now allows the commission to change its meeting procedures and discussion topics at any time during a public county meeting.
Records requests
Barfield’s records requests seek the public records in the individual possession of Baugh, Jonsson, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge from the period of Tuesday, Nov. 3 – which was election night – through Friday, Nov. 20.
Paralegal Michael Barfield helped the city of Bradenton Beach prevail in a recent Sunshine Law lawsuit. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
As newly-elected commissioners, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge became subject to the Florida Sunshine Law and the Public Records Act after the election results were known on Nov. 3.
The three new commissioners, and re-elected Commissioner Baugh, were sworn into office on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Jonsson did not seek re-election. His last day in office was Tuesday, Nov. 17.
Barfield’s records requests seek:
All emails sent or received between the period Nov. 3 and Nov. 20, 2020,
All text messages sent or received between those dates,
All messages sent or received via any digital app or social media platform between those dates, and
A detailed phone log of all calls made or received between those dates.
The recipients of Barfield’s records requests were given until 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 4 to produce the requested records.
When contacted this afternoon, Barfield said he had not yet received the requested records from any of the five individuals. He said he anticipated filing similar court complaints and motions against Baugh, Jonsson, Kruse and Van Ostenbridge early this week if those records are not produced.
As a non-attorney paralegal, Barfield is a member of the legal team that prevailed in a Sunshine Law lawsuit filed by the city of Bradenton Beach in 2017. That lawsuit, and 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, recently resulted in five of the defendants paying the city $351,500 as partial reimbursement for the attorney fees and paralegal fees incurred by the city.
Updated Nov. 29, 2020 – BRADENTON BEACH – The city has received a $350,000 settlement agreement payment from former Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants John Metz and Tjet Martin.
The city has also received $500 settlement payments from co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent.
On Thursday, Nov. 19, the city commission unanimously accepted the Metz-Martin settlement agreement previously discussed during a private shade meeting on Nov. 5.
The $350,000 payment serves as partial reimbursement for the more than $572,000 in attorney fees and legal costs the city incurred as a result of the civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether Martin, Metz, Reed Mapes, Shay and the Vincents violated the Sunshine Law when discussing advisory board matters at their Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017. Those meetings included a discussion about the potential pursuit of a citywide prohibition on the construction of parking garages.
In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that pertains to government transparency and conducting official public business only at properly noticed public meetings. Minus Shay, the other five defendants appealed Nicholas’ ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.
On Oct. 28, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498. In his written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements were not reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.
Settlement acceptance
City Attorney Ricinda Perry presented the Martin and Metz settlement offer for commission acceptance during the Nov. 19 meeting. She also presented a new settlement agreement reached with Shay.
The commission accepted the Martin and Metz settlement agreement and received the transferred funds the following day.
Vice Mayor Jake Spooner praised Perry’s efforts.
“Great job. We did what we’re supposed to do with protecting the transparency of the government, and the taxpayers are being reimbursed,” he said.
“I agree totally, and we said that all along about open, fair and transparent government,” Mayor John Chappie said.
Co-defendant agreements
During the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry also presented the settlement agreement with Shay, in which Shay agreed to pay the city $500 despite the judge’s recent order absolving her of financial responsibility.
“It dismisses everything as it relates to her. She is not a party to the appeal,” Perry said.
“Defendant Shay acknowledges she had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case, and further acknowledges that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” Perry said when reading aloud the settlement agreement language.
“That was a very important piece of information the city wanted to make sure was addressed. There was compensation provided for the error, but there was an admission that the Sunshine Law had not been complied with,” Perry said.
The commission unanimously approved Shay’s settlement agreement.
Perry said paralegal Michael Barfield expected a call later from the Vincents later that day regarding individual settlement agreements similar to Shay’s.
“I expect they will execute the same settlement agreement with the same admission that Ms. Shay did. The Vincents are part of the appeal. They would be obligated also to release us and terminate all proceedings in the underlying case,” Perry said.
The commission authorized Chappie to accept and execute the Vincents’ settlement agreements when received.
After the Nov. 19 meeting, Perry was asked about Mapes’ settlement status.
“The city commission has authorized me to make a settlement offer to Mr. Mapes. Communication will be made to Mr. Mapes following the execution of the settlement agreements with John Metz, Tjet Martin, Bill and Rose Vincent and Patty Shay,” Perry said.
When contacted last week, Barfield said the Vincents’ settlement agreements had been finalized.
As of Sunday, Mapes remained the lone defendant still appealing Nicholas’ 2019 ruling.
On Nov. 24, Mapes sent Perry an email saying he would agree to the same settlement terms reached with the Vincents.
“I will dismiss my appeal with prejudice. I will need a response to this by Monday, Nov. 30, so that my attorney has time to file the necessary appellate paperwork,” Mapes wrote in his email.
Mapes’ settlement offer has not yet been presented to the city commission, which meets again on Thursday, Dec. 3.
“It is the commission’s expectation to make the public whole and Reed’s offer fails to do so,” Perry said regarding Mapes’ offer.
“He will remain solely responsible for all future costs to fight the appeal, and for any costs upheld or awarded by the Second DCA,” she noted.
Updated Nov. 23, 2020 – BRADENTON – Thursday’s Manatee County Commission discussion about potentially terminating County Administrator Cheri Coryea has triggered a public records request from Florida Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield.
On Friday afternoon, Barfield, a paralegal, submitted individual written public records requests to county commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. County Attorney Mickey Palmer was copied on each of the requests Barfield submitted on behalf of Sarasota-based Denovo Law Services.
The records requests seek the public records in the individual possession of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge. A subsequent request seeks records from former Commissioner Steve Jonsson.
On Nov. 3, Baugh was re-elected as the county’s District 5 commissioner. Kruse was elected as the at-large District 7 commissioner. Satcher was elected as the District 1 commissioner. Van Ostenbridge was elected as the District 3 commissioner, a district that encompasses Anna Maria Island, Cortez and west Bradenton.
County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh is the subject of the public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The four commissioners were sworn into office on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Two days later, Van Ostenbridge initiated, with no advance public notice, a preliminary discussion seeking the termination of Coryea without cause.
At the conclusion of Thursday’s discussion, the newly-reconfigured county commission voted 4-3 in favor of putting Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a special county commission meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge supported that action. Commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore opposed that action.
Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge initiated Thursday’s termination discussion with no advance public notice. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
During Thursday’s discussion, Bellamy said the efforts to oust Coryea appeared to be “premeditated.” Whitmore said the efforts appeared to be “orchestrated.” Servia called the Van Ostenbridge-led efforts “reckless” and “dangerous.”
Records requests
According to the public records requests: “This is a request for records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Public Records Act of the Florida Constitution. We understand that a citizen is not required to make a written request to obtain public records under the act, but we want to be clear what we are seeking from you.”
The records requests pertain to the following records made, sent or received in connection with the transaction of official business, or the rendition of services on behalf of each of the four request recipients:
All emails sent or received from Nov. 3, 2020 to Nov. 20, 2020.
All text messages sent or received from November 3 to November 20.
All messages sent or received via any digital app or social media platform from Nov. 3 to Nov. 20.
A detailed phone log of all calls made or received between the period Nov. 3 and Nov. 20.
Commissioner James Satcher is the recipient of a public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to the records requests, the term “record” or “public records” also includes responsive records in both digital and hard copy formats, including email, text, SMS, MMS, .doc and voicemail.
According to the requests, “This request for records further includes any responsive records sent or received by any individual or entity via any private, nongovernmental account, as well as those records maintained, stored or archived in the cloud, on a shared drive, on the Internet, via social media accounts or any other electronic device such as a cell phone, tablet, flash drive, that is capable of sending, receiving or storing digital information.”
The records requests are also directed to any individual or entity – including any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation or business entity – acting on their behalf of any of the records request recipients.
“If you contend that any record, or portion thereof, is exempt from inspection, please state in writing the basis for the exemption and include the applicable statutory exemption,” the records requests note.
The records requests state the requested records shall not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the written records requests were submitted on Friday.
Commissioner George Kruse has received a public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Citing Florida Statutes, the records requests state: “If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
“The absence of a civil action instituted does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
“We are requesting that you notify each and every individual and entity in possession of records responsive to this request, and that all such records be preserved on an immediate basis.
“Please produce all records responsive to this request as provided by 119.12(1)(b), Fla. Statute,” the public records requests say in conclusion.
According to Barfield, the three new commissioners – Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge – became subject to the Public Records Act and the Florida Sunshine Law at the conclusion of the Nov. 3 elections.
According to Barfield, the four commissioners have until early December to fulfill the public records requests.
Recent Sunshine case
While assisting the attorneys representing the city of Bradenton Beach, Barfield recently played a significant role in the city prevailing in a Sunshine Law lawsuit that resulted in two of the six defendants paying the city $350,000 on Friday.
The $350,00 payment was partial reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred as a result of a civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in 2017.
An extensive number of emails and other records and documents Barfield obtained from the defendants and others in that case factored into the judge’s 2019 ruling that Sunshine Law violations occurred.
BRADENTON BEACH – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has issued an order calling for Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to potentially pay the city of Bradenton Beach at least $369,498 for attorney’s fees.
In the eight-page written order on the amount of fees and costs that Nicholas issued Wednesday morning, the judge relieved co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife, Rose Vincent, of any financial responsibilities regarding the city’s efforts to recover attorney fees and additional legal costs for the civil lawsuit the city filed in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open meetings and public records.
On July 19, 2019, Nicholas ruled that Mapes, Martin, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent each violated the Florida Sunshine Law in the spring and early summer of 2017 when discussing public business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. At the time the violations occurred, Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.
“It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the attorney’s fee award, as applied to defendants Patricia Shay, William Vincent and Rose Vincent is stricken,” Nicholas stated in his most recent order.
Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of their financial liabilities after learning earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the July 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected the settlement agreements initiated on the city’s behalf because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not expressed interest in entering into similar pre-trial settlement agreements.
From left, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin were among the six defendants in the 2017 lawsuit that resulted in Mapes and Martin and John Metz (not shown) being ordered to reimburse the city for attorney’s fees. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city of Bradenton Beach) shall have and recover from the remaining defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin attorney’s fees in the amount of $369,498,” Nicholas stated in his order.
The order also addresses approximately $31,000 in additional non-attorney-related legal costs that include court reporter fees and filing fees also sought by the city.
“The court also reserves jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the city’s costs to determine if they too should be imposed upon defendants Metz, Mapes and Martin,” the order says.
“The court anticipates that one additional hearing will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues of apportionment, joint and several liability and to again determine the amount of the costs and whether they should be awarded in addition to the attorney’s fees awarded herein,” the order says.
Nicholas’ ruling was the result of hearings that took place via Zoom video conferencing on June 10 and Aug. 13.
Pre-trial settlement offers
The fee recovery proceedings took an unanticipated turn during the June 10 hearing when Shay, representing herself as a pro se defendant, presented the argument that she should not be ordered to pay more than the $500 she agreed to pay in the settlement offer that Watrous and Barfield presented to her before the trial began.
Nicholas said he was not aware that Shay had agreed to settle with the city.
“Why should Ms. Shay bear the cost of a trial that she did not want to have?” Nicholas said on more than one occasion that day.
The Vincents then presented similar arguments regarding their rejected settlement agreements. Nicholas said he was not aware of the Vincents’ settlement offers either.
He learned that on June 28, 2019, the city commission rejected the three settlement agreements that acknowledged Sunshine Law compliance failures. He also learned that each of the three defendants provided the city with $500 settlement checks that were returned uncashed.
Representing the city, attorney Robert Watrous told Nicholas the city commission rejected those three settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlement agreements. Watrous said anything less than six settlement agreements would have still subjected the city and its taxpayers to the costs of a trial.
During the August hearing, Mapes, Martin and Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, claimed they never received the same pre-trial settlement offers presented to Shay and the Vincents.
Reactions to order
When contacted Wednesday morning, Shay commented on Nicholas’ order.
“I am grateful and so relieved. I’m just happy that it’s over. It’s been three tough years. As I stated in court, I was willing to settle this from the very beginning and on numerous occasions, when offers were made, I was willing to accept them. But as I said in the hearing on June 10th, I didn’t have the power or ability to convince the other pro se defendants to do that,” Shay said.
When contacted via email Wednesday afternoon and asked if he wished to comment on the ruling, Mapes said, “No.”
As of Wednesday evening, Martin, Metz, Shults and the Vincents had not responded to The Sun’s email requests for comment.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said, “I am pleased with the detailed order from Judge Nicholas that serves to make the taxpayers whole and we look forward to obtaining a judgment to award the costs as well. The order clearly stands behind the transparency required of government so as to prevent the erosion of trust and integrity by those who serve the public. Government is called to serve the people; not the people who form the government.”
What next?
Sarasota-based paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield has been assisting the city with this case since its inception in 2017.
“It’s not over yet, but I think this is a significant victory that will go a long way towards making the city whole and healing its treasury,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon in response to Nicholas’ order.
Barfield is now assisting attorney Mark Caramanica and Perry in the city’s defense of the appeals filed by five of the six defendants regarding Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that they violated the Sunshine Law – an appeal process Shay is not participating in.
From left, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield served as the city’s legal team during the 2019 trial and the attorney’s fees hearings that followed. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to Barfield, “The payment of $369,498 in attorney fees, and any additional legal costs ordered by Nicholas must be paid by the three defendants in full or by posting a bond. Only if the defendants prevail in the appeals process that is currently proceeding through the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland would the monies be returned.”
Regarding Nicholas’ latest order, Barfield said, “The order is not final yet in terms of it being subject to appeal. And there’s still some steps that need to be taken on the costs, as well as apportionment among the three defendants that Judge Nicholas saddled with the fees. When that happens, the city will then take the position that they (Mapes, Martin and Metz) need to obtain a supersedeas bond. If they lose the appeal, then there’s no further fighting. The city gets its money. That’s the position we’ll take and the city will insist that they post a supersedeas bond,” Barfield said.
According to the Colonial Bonds & Insurance website, “A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant’s appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.”
Previous settlement offers
On Sept. 5, 2017 – less than one month after the city filed the civil lawsuit – attorney Jim Dye submitted to Watrous a settlement offer proposed on behalf of the five defendants he represented at the time: Mapes, Martin, Shay and the Vincents.
Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city board positions and were each willing to pay the city $100 toward the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke’s legal fees. That offer stated there would be no admission or denial of liability or fault regarding the alleged Sunshine Law violations. The city commission rejected that offer because it contained no acknowledgment of violating the Sunshine Law.
In March 2019, the defendants collectively rejected a settlement offer proposed by the city that requested each defendant pay the city $500 each, or $3,000 collectively, and the defendants collectively acknowledge errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. The city’s settlement offer was contingent on all six defendants’ acceptance.
The defendants collectively rejected that offer and responded with a counteroffer that proposed they make a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center and contained alternative language that said “errors may have occurred” rather than “errors did occur” regarding Sunshine Law compliance.
In April 2019, the city commission offered to accept a settlement offer that stated “errors may have occurred” if the defendants agreed to pay the city’s attorney’s fees and legal costs to date, which at that time totaled approximately $203,000.The defendants rejected that offer.
In late May of 2019, the defendants presented the city with individual settlement counteroffers that collectively sought a total of $60,902 in attorney fee reimbursements from the city and an additional $24,444 from Clarke.
John Metz is one of three defendants facing a possible shared financial obligation to the city of Bradenton Beach of more than $369,000. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It appears to be lost on the city commission and Mr. Clarke that they are exposed to substantial monetary liability in this case. This liability consists of not just the attorney’s fees and cost the city will expend for the trial and the appeals thereafter, but also the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by all defendants,” said the offer Shults prepared on Metz’s behalf.
“The open meetings law permits the award of attorney’s fees and costs against the city and Clarke if the court finds this suit was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. The city and Clarke can rest assured that Mr. Metz will pursue his right to such award if this matter is not resolved,” Metz’s offer said.
The city commission rejected all of those counteroffers and instructed the city’s legal team to continue preparing for the trial.
BRADENTON – Manatee County 12th Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas ruled Friday that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes, John Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and former Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent violated the Florida Sunshine Law.
The Sunshine Law violations occurred at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings in June, July and August of 2017.
The potential Sunshine Law violations were first reported by The Sun on Aug. 2, 2017.
The city of Bradenton Beach and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke filed the civil lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2017. The lawsuit sought a judge’s determination as to whether the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law by discussing advisory board business at CNOBB meetings.
The non-jury trial took place at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton and began on Monday, July 15. When the testimony and legal arguments concluded on Thursday, July 18, Nicholas said he’d issue his ruling Friday morning.
The defendants and defense attorneys awaited the judge’s ruling Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city and Clarke in the case, assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield and City Attorney Ricinda Perry.
Attorneys Thomas Shults and Jodi Ruberg represented Metz – and to a lesser degree the five pro se defendants who previously discontinued the services of their shared attorney.
“I am hoping to some extent the conclusion of this trial may help close the wound that has been so open and so raw out in Bradenton Beach for so long,” Nicholas said before issuing his ruling.
Judge’s ruling
When issuing his detailed ruling, Nicholas first cited the Florida Constitution and the Sunshine Law contained within it.
“We begin with Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution that reads: ‘All meetings of any collegial body of the executive branch of the state government, or of any collegial body of any county, municipality, school district or special district at which official acts are to be taken, or at which public business of such body is to be transacted or discussed shall be open and noticed to the public,’” Nicholas said.
Judge Edward Nicholas ruled all six former advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Nicholas noted the defendants were all duly sworn advisory board members who acknowledged participating in Sunshine Law training.
During the trial, Watrous established that each defendant took an oath of office as an advisory board member and swore to protect the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution. Watrous said those oaths followed the advisory board members wherever they went, including CNOBB meetings.
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting.” – Edward Nicholas, Manatee County 12th Circuit Court Judge
In their testimony and/or pre-trial depositions, Metz, Mapes, Shay and Bill Vincent expressed their beliefs that CNOBB’s parking garage discussions did not violate the Sunshine Law because the city’s comprehensive plan prohibited parking garages and it was not reasonably foreseeable that one could ever be built.
Nicholas noted City Planner Alan Garrett testified the comp plan only prohibited parking garages in two of the city’s 11 zone district designations in 2017.
“A parking garage could theoretically be built in nine designated areas within the city,” Nicholas said of the comp plan as it existed in 2017.
Compliance concerns
Nicholas noted Perry sent an email to the Planning and Zoning board members on July 25, 2017, notifying them of the potential Sunshine Law implications of their CNOBB meetings and email exchanges.
Nicholas noted Perry also emailed then-Mayor Bill Shearon two days later, and Shearon forwarded that email to the planning board members. That email also expressed concerns about advisory board members attending CNOBB meetings in violation of the Sunshine Law.
City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous successfully presented the city’s case.
The trial included extensive discussion about the 2017 correspondence Bill Vincent had with the Florida Commission on Ethics and the Florida Office of the Attorney General regarding advisory board members participating in CNOBB meetings.
The Commission on Ethics response advised Vincent to review the Sunshine Law manual at the Attorney General’s website and possibly consult with private counsel. The Attorney General Office’s response advised Vincent to consult with the city attorney.
“The defendants never got answers to those questions. The defendants continued to meet despite their concerns, despite not getting answers to these very important questions. Had they contacted Ricinda Perry, she would have answered: ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies.’ Had they contacted any attorney in the state of Florida they would have said, ‘Yes, the Sunshine Law applies,’ ” Nicholas said.
Constitutional rights
During the trial, Shults, Metz, Mapes and Vincent expressed their opinions that state law allowed the advisory board members to discuss city issues that pertained to the possible pursuit of citizens’ initiatives.
Attorney Thomas Shults, left, was unsuccessful in his defense of John Metz and the five pro se defendants. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The defendants attempt to characterize these violative meetings as ballot initiative meetings pursuant to Section 166.031 (Florida Statute) is simply not persuasive. This ballot initiative defense strikes this court as an after-the-fact attempt to justify or otherwise rationalize what were otherwise clear and unequivocal violations of the Sunshine Law. It is a clever explanation for such violations, but it is not a compelling or persuasive one,” Nicholas said.
“The efforts to characterize their violative meetings as the right to assemble and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment also is not persuasive. Every citizen has the right to assemble and has the right to free speech. However, when an individual joins a government advisory board the Sunshine Law still applies. If that were not the case, every county commission, every city council, every advisory board could hold secret meetings and simply say I have a First Amendment right to do so. That would largely make the Sunshine Law meaningless and void,” Nicholas said.
Meeting recordings
During the trial, Nicholas heard audio recordings of entire CNOBB meetings and audio excerpts from CNOBB meetings.
“It’s certainly unusual that we have tapes of at least some of the meetings that took place outside of the Sunshine,” Nicholas said.
He then recited some of the statements made at CNOBB meetings:
“I have concerns about how the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is functioning;”
“We need to prohibit the construction of a parking garage in the city of Bradenton Beach;”
“It is on the CRA list;”
“Parking garage could easily come before Planning and Zoning;”
“That whole strip over there would be a parking garage;”
“We need to specify a municipal parking garage;”
“It would be a huge building;”
“We need to prohibit construction of a parking garage in Bradenton Beach, it doesn’t matter if it’s by a municipality or a huge corporation;”
“Horrendous traffic problems with a parking garage.”
Nicholas then said, “Those were all quotes. That is the very definition of a discussion about public business. And it wasn’t just parking garage discussions: CNOBB discussed ropes and bollards, sidewalks, parking issues, the Bridge Tender (Inn) land swap, Bridge Street planters – all issues that had come before Planning and Zoning or Scenic WAVES.”
The judge ruled that former Planning and Zoning Board members Reed Mapes and Bill Vincent violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said.
“Also, there were at least four CNOBB meetings that were not recorded early on as the group was becoming organized. What was discussed at those meetings? Who attended those meetings? These questions point to the obvious need for Sunshine Law compliance,” Nicholas said.
Nicholas said the defendants’ passionate and firmly held beliefs regarding city issues caused them to abdicate their obligation to follow the law.
“My finding that all the defendants clearly and unequivocally violated the Sunshine Law does not in any way suggest that they are bad people. I do not agree with the suggestion that the defendants attempted to form a secret government or a shadow government, or that their meetings were surreptitious or clandestine in any way,” Nicholas said.
The judge ruled that former advisory board members Rose Vincent, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.
“Judgment is in favor of the city. The court finds that all the defendants, as members of Planning and Zoning and members of the Scenic WAVES Partnership Committee were subject to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Section 286.011 of Florida Statute,” Nicholas ruled.
Additional comments
Nicholas said a post-trial hearing will be scheduled to address potential sanctions. These include the city’s request to be reimbursed for a portion of its legal fees that now exceed $250,000.
“We agree with everything the judge said,” Watrous said after he left the courtroom.
“The Sunshine Law has been vindicated,” Barfield said.
“We agree with the judgment and look forward to the city moving forward and healing. The city does not wish to sue any of its board members, and it’s unfortunate this wasn’t settled earlier, but the Sunshine Law is important. It provides the city and its citizens with an open government,” Perry said,
“Obviously, I’m pleased with the verdict,” Clarke said.
“Government in the sunshine is why we are here. It’s as simple as that, it’s as important as that. It’s the foundation of what good government is built on; openness, transparency and accountability. Anything less is just not acceptable and now’s the time to heal,” Mayor John Chappie said.
“I’m very pleased with the judge’s ruling and I would like to thank everyone involved for presenting a clear case to the court. This was an unfortunate circumstance the city commission was put in to uphold our oaths to protect the laws of the state and to protect the city from litigation. I wish this would’ve been resolved through our previous settlement offers for a less expensive and earlier conclusion,” Vice Mayor Jake Spooner said.
Co-plaintiff Jack Clarke, Vice Mayor Jake Spooner (second row), Mayor John Chappie, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, paralegal Michael Barfield and attorney Robert Watrous await the judge’s arrival Friday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In March, all six defendants rejected a settlement offer from the city that proposed a collective admission that mistakes were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance and a $500 payment from each defendant. The defendants rejected the settlement offer that required them to acknowledge non-compliance with the Sunshine Law.
In May, Metz and the other defendants submitted counter proposals that sought significant financial reimbursement from the city. Metz’s offer also expressed a willingness to subject the city to a future appeals process.
